Fully understand the significance of strengthening the capital adequacy control of commercial banks at present. Generally speaking, China's banking industry has insufficient self-discipline ability, high proportion of non-performing assets, high operational risks, and low capital adequacy ratio of various commercial banks. According to the data released by China Banking Regulatory Commission, by the end of 2003, the average capital adequacy ratio of 1 1 joint-stock commercial banks in China was 7.35%, and that of1/2 city commercial banks was 6. 13%. The capital adequacy ratio of the five listed banks is relatively high, but due to the expansion of their scale, the capital adequacy ratio is also declining: the capital adequacy ratio of Shenzhen Development Bank was 9.49% at the end of 2002 and dropped to 8.89% in the first quarter of 2003, and the capital adequacy ratio of Huaxia Bank just reached 8.01%before listing; From 2000 to 2002, the capital adequacy ratio of Shanghai Pudong Development Bank was 65,438+03.5%, 65,438+065, 438+0.27% and 8.54% respectively, and it was not improved until June 2003. In June 2000, before the listing of Minsheng Bank, the capital adequacy ratio was 10.48%. After listing, the capital adequacy ratio soared to 2 1.45% at the end of 2000, but one year later, the capital adequacy ratio plummeted to 10. 1%, and then dropped to 8.20% at the end of 2002. However, in order to accelerate the pace of shareholding system reform and achieve the "hard target" of reducing the ratio of non-performing assets, the short-term behavior of the four major state-owned commercial banks is very obvious. In this environment, it is of great practical significance to strengthen the control of bank capital adequacy ratio. First of all, strengthening the control of capital adequacy ratio is conducive to fair competition among banks. At present, the commercial bank system in China consists of three parts: state-owned commercial banks, joint-stock commercial banks and city commercial banks. State-owned commercial banks have absolute advantages in institutional outlets, customer resources and market share. At the same time, they are guaranteed by national reputation and have strong competitive strength in peer competition. If the regulators can't achieve "everyone is equal before the law" and the state-owned banks still enjoy privileges in some aspects, it will be impossible to form fair competition. Although the capital adequacy ratio of various commercial banks is quite different, there is no difference between commercial banks that meet the standards and commercial banks that do not meet the standards in terms of business scope, asset scale, expenses and salary, thus forming an unfair competitive environment. Secondly, it is conducive to controlling the scale of credit and improving the quality of assets. As a "rigid" indicator, capital adequacy ratio will encourage banks to actively digest non-performing assets, change asset structure and reduce risk-weighted assets when capital is insufficient, so as to reach the legal standard of 8%. Even if the capital is sufficient, commercial banks must determine their business scale according to this index under certain capital conditions. Therefore, the control of capital adequacy ratio is conducive to preventing commercial banks from blindly expanding regardless of their own strength. It is precisely because this "rigid" indicator has been "softened" in China that on the one hand, commercial banks are seriously short of capital, and on the other hand, they have greatly increased their credit assets for short-term goals (such as diluting the non-performing loan ratio). Third, it can protect the interests of depositors. As a credit intermediary, the main sources of funds of commercial banks are deposits and liabilities, of which savings deposits account for about 60% of all liabilities; On the other hand, the asset business as capital invests its capital in various profitable assets, which inevitably leads to various risks. Once the risk is converted into actual loss, it will face the obligation to make up for the loss and meet the liquidity requirements of depositors. Strengthening capital adequacy control can improve the ability of commercial banks to resist risks and protect the interests of depositors, especially resident depositors. Fourth, it is conducive to promoting the internal reform of banks and improving their profitability. The capital of state-owned commercial banks comes from national financial allocation and self-accumulation. Self-accumulation is endogenous capital, which commercial banks can change through their own efforts. Under the current financial revenue and expenditure situation, the practical operation method of commercial banks is to accelerate the pace of internal reform and improve profitability. Fifth, it is conducive to promoting the business innovation of state-owned commercial banks. Strengthen capital adequacy control, so that the asset business scale of commercial banks is subordinate to the capital scale. In order to increase profits, commercial banks must find another way to develop intermediary business, which is conducive to promoting the innovation of state-owned commercial banks in financial products, service methods and service means and improving their competitiveness. The first suggestion on strengthening capital adequacy control of state-owned commercial banks is to draw lessons from international experience, fully consider the self-discipline ability of Chinese commercial banks and the supervision ability of regulatory agencies, and formulate operational capital control measures. The United States passed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act (FDICIA) on19910. Article 13 1 of FDICIA- Immediate Improvement Measures (PAC) evaluates the bank's capital adequacy ratio according to three indicators: total capital ratio, core capital ratio and leverage ratio. On this basis, commercial banks are divided into five grades: good capital, moderate capital, insufficient capital, obvious capital shortage and serious capital shortage, so as to take immediate improvement measures for those banks with insufficient capital. 1 9 9 2, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) of the United States analyzed the financial statements of the insured banks, and found that among the10.2 million banks operating at that time, over 98% of them belonged to well-capitalized and moderately capitalized groups, and only 2% of them belonged to the third category with insufficient capital. PAC allows FDIC to take compulsory improvement measures for commercial banks with insufficient capital, such as limiting business scope, suspending dividends and withdrawing management fees, limiting asset growth, and limiting managers' salaries, so as to strengthen capital adequacy ratio control and urge commercial banks to improve capital adequacy ratio. If the ratio of tangible equity capital to total assets of a bank drops to 2% or less, the bank will be regarded as seriously undercapitalized and will be listed as bankrupt or taken over within 90 days, unless the main regulator and FDIC of the bank consider the public interest and believe that the deposit insurance fund can enable the bank to continue to operate under the current equity and management conditions. In order to avoid being taken over, banks must have a positive net worth and prove that their original situation has indeed improved. China Banking Regulatory Commission should learn from the experience of developed countries such as the United States, classify commercial banks into different levels according to the internationally unified capital adequacy standards and the capital status of commercial banks, and formulate operational capital control measures suitable for China's national conditions. We can divide the control measures into mandatory and non-mandatory categories. Commercial banks can be divided into three levels according to the different capital adequacy ratios: capital adequacy (total capital ratio ≥ 10%, core capital ratio ≥6%), moderate capital (total capital ratio ≥ 8%, core capital ratio ≥ 4%) and capital shortage (two or one of them is not up to standard). Commercial banks with sufficient capital do not need to implement mandatory capital control measures to limit their business activities; The regulatory agencies of commercial banks with moderate capital should limit their high-risk business activities and take appropriate intervention measures to prevent their capital adequacy ratio from falling below the minimum standard; For commercial banks with insufficient capital, the regulatory authorities should divide them into three levels according to their capital adequacy ratio: insufficient capital, obviously insufficient capital and seriously insufficient capital, and urge them to change their capital adequacy status through compulsory control measures. Compulsory control measures can consider the following aspects: (1) limiting the business scope of commercial banks; Limitation of asset size; Restrictions on the payment of management fees; Restrictions on the payment of managers' salaries; Restrictions on the floating right of interest rate; Restrict the opening of branches and so on. In the specific operation, it is suggested that the regulatory authorities determine the content of restrictions according to the degree of bank capital shortage. Non-mandatory control measures are more flexible. You can consider submitting capital replenishment plan, capital reorganization plan and capital structure adjustment. Secondly, it is necessary to reasonably determine the adjustment period. At the end of 2003, Bank of China and China Construction Bank received US$ 22.5 billion capital injection respectively, and their capital adequacy ratio was greatly improved. However, ICBC and ABC, which have not received capital injection, are only two banks far from the minimum standards, and the capital adequacy ratio of other joint-stock banks and city commercial banks is also low as a whole. Therefore, the CBRC must consider the actual situation of banks, reasonably determine the adjustment period, replenish capital for banks and reduce the time for risk-weighted assets to ensure the feasibility of capital adequacy ratio control and the seriousness of financial laws and regulations. Third, we must ensure the effectiveness and consistency of supervision. After the adjustment period is determined, the regulatory agency must supervise in strict accordance with the adjustment period. All commercial banks with a capital adequacy ratio of 8% during the adjustment period can engage in business activities in accordance with the Commercial Banking Law and the business scope allowed by the regulatory authorities. Commercial banks that fail to meet this standard, regardless of their organizational structure and ownership form, should be restricted in their business scope and distribution system. At present, the competition between banks is extremely fierce. Any commercial bank hopes to provide its customers with all-round quality services and excellent professionals, but the "hard constraint" of capital adequacy ratio will bind the hands and feet of commercial banks that fail to meet the standards, thus using the "reverse mechanism" to force commercial banks to change their current capital adequacy ratio.